PUBLIC participation in legislative processes is not a procedural courtesy but a constitutional imperative. The Constitution of Zimbabwe establishes a democratic order premised on the active involvement of citizens in governance, including law making processes. In particular, section 141 of the Constitution obliges Parliament to “facilitate public involvement in its legislative and other processes,” while section 62 of the Constitution guarantees the right of access to information necessary for meaningful engagement. Section 139 of the Constitution underscores the fact that procedures and processes of Parliament must encourage the involvement of the public and must be fair and just. Section 149 of the Constitution further provides citizens with the right to petition Parliament on any matter within its authority, including the enactment, amendment, or repeal of legislation. In addition, section 328 of the Constitution outlines specific requirements for public participation in the process of amending the Constitution. Read together, these provisions affirm that citizens are active and integral participants in the formulation of laws in Zimbabwe.
Additionally, the right to public participation is intrinsically linked to the freedoms of expression, association, and assembly, and the right to participate individually and collectively in gatherings or groups to influence policies of government all of which are protected under Sections 58, 59, 61 and 67 of the Constitution. The effective exercise of participatory rights depends on the full enjoyment of these freedoms. Any undue restriction on the ability of individuals or groups to express views, organise collectively, or assemble peacefully directly undermines the integrity of the legislative process. These rights are not peripheral, they are enabling conditions that ensure public participation is informed, inclusive, and meaningful.
Courts across jurisdictions have consistently held that meaningful public participation is grounded in the standard of reasonableness (Doctors for Life International v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others 2006 (6) SA 416 (CC). This entails, at a minimum, providing adequate notice of public hearings, ensuring that consultation processes are geographically accessible, facilitating the inclusion of diverse groups, particularly marginalised communities and demonstrating that public input has been considered in final decisions. In the absence of these elements, participation is reduced to a procedural formality rather than a substantive exercise, undermining its constitutional purpose.
In addition, The Gunning Principles coined by Stephen Sedley QC in the case of (R v London Borough of Brent ex parte Gunning) relating to school closure consultations, are instructive in assessing the legitimacy of public participation in legislative processes. They require the terms of the proposed law to be presented to the public at the formative stages so as to avoid predetermined outcomes. Secondly, sufficient information should be availed to the public so as to elicit 'intelligible consideration’ of the proposed law. Furthermore, the public must be given adequate time to consider the proposed law and to give a response. Lastly, decision-makers, in this context, Parliament, must give 'conscientious consideration' to the views of the public and must provide evidence that they took into account such views before making a decision.
These standards are equally applicable in Zimbabwe, where the Constitution requires genuine and meaningful public participation. Specifically, the Constitution obliges Parliament to facilitate public involvement in its legislative and oversight functions by inviting both oral and written submissions from citizens, civil society, and other stakeholders. To meet this obligation, public hearings must be conducted in an open, transparent, and accessible manner, with adequate and timely notice, clear communication of the subject matter, and appropriate platforms for engagement and participation. Crucially, consultations should be decentralised to enable nationwide participation and must accommodate diverse groups, including marginalised communities. While logistical and resource constraints may pose challenges, these do not diminish Parliament’s constitutional duty to ensure that participation is meaningful, inclusive, and reasonably accessible. These measures are essential to give full effect to the participatory rights guaranteed under sections 141, 149, and 328 of the Constitution.
ZLHR Case Experience on the Right to Public Participation
Drawing on ZLHR’s litigation experience, recent legislative developments have raised significant constitutional compliance concerns regarding the protection of the right to public participation in Zimbabwe. For instance, the 2025 enactment of the Private Voluntary Organisations (Amendment) Act (PVO Act) drew criticism from civil society actors who argued that consultations were limited in scope and substance. These concerns were supported by documented reports, including affidavits filed in litigation and accounts from observers, indicating disruptions during public hearings which eroded confidence in the integrity of the participatory process. Such incidents not only undermine constitutional guarantees but also weaken the legitimacy of the laws that emerge from these processes. Notably, in the case of Passionate Fuza & Another v Parliament of Zimbabwe CCZ-36-25, the Constitutional Court was called upon to determine whether Parliament had failed to fulfil its constitutional obligation to facilitate public hearings on the PVO Amendment Bill. The case involved violent and systematic disruptions of the public hearings at several venues across Zimbabwe. At the core of the case, was the allegation that public participation had been severely undermined by the violent disruption of public hearings on the PVO Amendment Bill. Unfortunately, whilst the court recognised the constitutional obligation on parliament to ensure meaningful public participation in legislative processes, it dismissed the application citing that, to invalidate legislation it required a clear proof of systematic or widespread failure of public participation as opposed to isolated or episodic incidences of disruption. The Court’s narrow interpretation of the evidentiary threshold underscores the need for future jurisprudence to clarify the standard for assessing participatory compliance.
The recent gazetting of Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment Bill (No.3) (H.B.1, 2026) has also brought the issue of public participation into scrutiny. Constitutional amendments, by their nature, affect the foundational principles of governance, including the separation of powers, judicial independence, and the balance of authority between the State and citizens. As such, they demand the highest standard of public scrutiny and engagement. At the outset, public participation in constitutional amendment processes require early and proactive engagement, ensuring that citizens are consulted on Bills at the formative stages of policy and legislative development, grounding such reforms in a clear and legitimate mandate from the people. Parliament must further ensure that consultations are inclusive, transparent, and free from intimidation or interference, while adhering to entrenched constitutional provisions that require referendums where applicable. In this regard, section 7 of the Constitution requires the State to translate the Constitution into all officially recognised languages and disseminate it as widely as possible. This obligation equally applies to proposed amendments to the constitution. Furthermore, Parliament has an obligation to provide adequate facilities and accommodations for persons with disabilities to enable them to meaningfully participate in legislative processes and to minimise the disadvantages suffered by them. In this vein, Parliament is enjoined to create special facilities for persons with disabilities during the public hearings into legislative processes.
Finally, the core freedoms of association, expression, and assembly must be fully respected and safeguarded throughout the consultative process. In the case of Tendai Katsaira v Parliament of Zimbabwe CCZ-26-26, the Constitutional Court was asked to determine whether Parliament had failed to fulfil its constitutional obligation to facilitate public hearings by convening only a single public hearing on Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment Bill (No.3) (H.B.1, 2026) in Hwedza district. The applicant argued that a single public hearing in that district was inadequate given the sheer size and geographical spread of the population in Hwedza district. The Constitutional Court, however, held that no constitutional matter was raised as the decision to convene public hearings is an administrative decision of Parliament that is subject to review. Consequently, the Constitutional Court stated that the question of whether Parliament has made a correct decision on the choice of places where public hearings are to be held was not a constitutional question in itself, warranting an inquiry on whether Parliament had failed to fulfil its constitutional duty to facilitate public hearings. Nonetheless, the overarching constitutional obligation to facilitate meaningful public participation remains binding, and administrative decisions must be assessed against this broader standard.
Ultimately, the legitimacy of Zimbabwe’s legislative framework rests on the integrity of its processes. Upholding the right to public participation is not only a constitutional requirement, but also a critical foundation for building trust between citizens and the State. As the country embarks on the legislative process relating to the proposed constitutional amendments, lawmakers carry a clear obligation to move beyond procedural formalities and to give full effect to the participatory rights enshrined in the Constitution.
Over and above this, “the true measure of a democratic society lies not merely in the laws it enacts, but in the manner in which those laws are made”.
*Azaria Kutsanzira and Kelvin Kabaya are Programme Lawyers at Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights.